A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

Please note: our decisions are published three months after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.

London Borough of Newham (19 014 134)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the affordability of her temporary accommodation and the Council’s decisions regarding her housing benefit and a discretionary housing payment applications. The Council was at fault. It failed to consider Mrs X’s housing benefit appeal request and failed to advise Mrs X that it had awarded her a discretionary housing payment. The Council has since written to Mrs X to advise her of the award and has reconsidered her housing benefit application so there is no outstanding injustice to Mrs X. It remains open to Mrs X to appeal the housing benefit decision if she disagrees with it.

Maidstone Borough Council (20 004 019)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s calculation of Mrs X’s council tax liability. This is because Mrs X has the right of appeal against this decision to the Valuation Tribunal.

Norwich City Council (20 000 175)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s poor record keeping on his council tax account has caused distress and financial hardship, and he is unhappy with its complaint handling. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s record keeping but finds fault in its complaint handling. He recommends the Council provides Mr X with an apology.

Buckinghamshire Council (20 003 982)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms T’s complaint about Council Tax liability. This is because it would be reasonable to expect Ms T to use her right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal against the Council’s demand for council tax, and the Ombudsman could not hold the Council responsible for any injustice Ms T claims from delay in the Council issuing the demand.

Tewkesbury Borough Council (19 015 989)

Summary: The Council failed to tell Mr B that it had billed his council tax on a provisional band. It failed to make sure that it billed him correctly within a reasonable time and this caused him to accrue arrears. The Council has apologised, agreed to amend the account, and pay Mr B £200 in recognition of the distress it caused him. The Council has already altered its practice so this does not recur.

Blackpool Borough Council (19 016 842)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed in deciding he was not eligible for housing benefit and then changed its decision but did not tell him it had done so. The Council delayed in deciding about Mr X’s eligibility for housing benefit. This meant Mr X’s experienced unnecessary distress. The Council will apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 to remedy the distress he experienced.

Tewkesbury Borough Council (19 017 202)

Summary: The Council failed to tell Mrs B that it had billed her council tax on a provisional band. It failed to make sure that it billed her correctly within a reasonable time and this caused her to accrue arrears. The Council should not have issued a summons on the account while Mrs B was still disputing it. The Council has apologised, agreed to amend the account, and pay Mrs B £200 in recognition of the distress it caused her. The Council has already altered its practice so this does not recur.

Hart District Council (20 002 130)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council invoiced her for overpaid housing and council tax benefits for several years. This is because Mrs X has already appealed to the tribunal about her housing benefit claim and an investigation of the other issues would be unlikely to achieve a significantly different outcome as the Council has offered an appropriate remedy.

Southampton City Council (19 015 169)

Summary: The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation into this complaint about the conduct of enforcement agents in pursuing a Council Tax debt. This is because the majority of the complaint is outside his jurisdiction, and he could not add anything to the Council’s investigation of the remaining points.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (19 016 200)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed in telling his father he was not eligible for housing benefit and to instead apply for Universal Credit. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s actions.

Forest of Dean District Council (20 000 150)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to seek a bankruptcy notice against him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is out of time and was also a matter for the courts.

London Borough of Harrow (20 002 199)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decisions regarding his liability for council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he has appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (19 013 851)

Summary: Miss F complains the Council is enforcing council tax arrears she does not owe, as she was receiving council tax support. The Council says it has no record of a council tax support claim for the period of the debt. Our view is, more likely than not, the Council did have a debt to enforce. Miss F can appeal if she believes she was not liable. The Council has enforced the debt following procedures, so we see no evidence of fault.

London Borough of Barnet (19 019 888)

Summary: Ms H complains the Council has sought to recover council tax from her that she did not owe. She says it ignored information and made false claims about what she had told it. We uphold the complaint, as there is some evidence of fault. But the Council’s apology is a suitable remedy.

London Borough of Hounslow (19 011 021)

Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to provide council tax bills and failing to provide reasons for decisions on council tax support. It is further at fault for taking a large direct debit and failing to deal with a request for a discretionary council tax reduction and a complaint about this. The Council caused Mr and Mrs X time, trouble and distress. It will apologise to them and make an appropriate payment.

South Gloucestershire Council (20 002 221)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s use of enforcement agents to recover unpaid council tax. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to withdraw the agent’s charges and pay him £100 in recognition of its fault in the recovery procedure. This is a reasonable settlement to the matters which Mr X raised in his complaint.

Cheshire East Council (20 003 188)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about disputed council tax liability. The complainant has a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (19 002 490)

Summary: The Council told Miss X it would pay her £414.24 a month directly in housing benefit if she gave a tenancy to someone it was supporting. This did not happen as the property is in a Universal Credit area and Miss X received no rent. The Council ignored Miss X’s step 1 complaint, took five months to reply to her at step 2 and never responded at step 3 despite assuring the Ombudsman that it would. The Council will pay Miss X the money it said she would receive and make a payment for the distress, time and trouble it caused her.

London Borough of Camden (19 018 550)

Summary: The Ombudsman discontinued the investigation of Ms D’s complaint about Council officers visiting premises the charity she works for rents and opening bags and boxes stored on behalf of customers. This complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as the charity can pursue a remedy for trespass and interference with goods through the courts.

London Borough of Harrow (20 002 288)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his council tax account. This is because the Ombudsman cannot add to what the Council has already said and Mr X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he remains unhappy.

South Gloucestershire Council (20 002 299)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council giving incorrect advice about the implications of travelling abroad on his housing benefit claim in 2018. He says that he lost entitlement to his claim following changes in legislation after the advice was given. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it has re-instated Mr X’s claim following a decision from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and there is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant an investigation. Mr X could appeal against the latest decision to an independent tribunal if he disagrees with it.

St Albans City Council (20 003 304)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on his liability for council tax. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal against this to the Valuation Tribunal and so the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s legal remit. Mr X’s complaint about data protection is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Stratford-on-Avon District Council (20 003 368)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council incorrectly sent him a business rate charge for a property which caused him distress. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council has waived the charge and the Ombudsman would not seek any further remedy in this matter.